I get that people don't think twice about giving it away. But it's another thing for that to be the moral justification for defending the merits of facial recognition.
Pardon my take, but:
A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy, but the swing voter is concerned about what is essentially the visual equivalent of the "Which Disney Princess are you?" quiz.
The moral framework that concludes that people need to be coddled against making the wrong decision about sharing their face data for stuff like this is a bit condescending. Why do we assume people haven't considered the risks and decided they think either the odds of worst case scenarios are low or they aren't bothered by them?
It feels a little bit like the gun control debate. Taking away people's freedoms because of the possible worst case outcome can result in a worse overall situation.
If people aren't bothered by how facial recognition is used, stepping in and asserting we know better and they need a legal protection seems premature and overreaching.
Pardon my take, but:
A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy, but the swing voter is concerned about what is essentially the visual equivalent of the "Which Disney Princess are you?" quiz.